Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Ken Connor :: Townhall.com Columnist
Slavery: Then and now
by Ken Connor
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"Never, never will we desist till we . . . extinguish every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of those enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country."

--William Wilberforce, opposing slavery before the House of Commons

Christians across the country have been eagerly awaiting this weekend's release of Amazing Grace—a movie about William Wilberforce, the British evangelical Christian who led the political movement against slavery in the eighteenth century. With Amazing Grace, modern evangelicals have an opportunity to remember the great cloud of witnesses that surround us—the brave and passionate Christians of generations past who worked tirelessly to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and free the enslaved. We also have an opportunity to take stock of our own situation. How far have we come in the struggle to defend human dignity?

Slavery: A Modern Reality

In light of William Wilberforce's campaign to rid his nation of slavery, it is important to remember that, for millions of men, women and children around the world, slavery is not just a historical tragedy, it is a present reality. The "bloody traffic" that Wilberforce considered a disgrace to his nation has not yet ended--far from it. The number of modern day slaves is estimated to be around 27 million. Furthermore, government statistics indicate that between 600,000 and 800,000 human beings are trafficked across international borders every year (roughly the populations of Vermont and Delaware, respectively).

Modern day slavery does not look exactly like the monster Wilberforce challenged, but it is no less dehumanizing. It sometimes takes the form of sexual slavery. Frequently the women and girls who become enslaved prostitutes are from extreme poverty. To earn their trust, captors promise impoverished women good jobs and new lives in foreign countries. Sometimes modern slave traders buy young girls from extremely poor parents and promise the parents that they will educate their daughters.

Of course, these women are not actually offered an education or given real jobs. Instead they are taken to foreign countries where they are helpless and alone, and often unable to speak the language. They are threatened, beaten, and forced to work as prostitutes in filthy brothels. Barely fed and never paid, enslaved prostitutes are required to work seven days a week and forced to service over a dozen men a day. Tragically, in some politically unstable nations, many of the men who visit enslaved prostitutes are law enforcement officers and government officials. Often enslaved women will contract deadly diseases and die after years of misery and suffering.

There are also millions of examples of modern day slaves who are forced into hard labor. In war torn African countries, orphans are all too frequently taken and sold into slavery or enlisted in child armies. Male slaves often labor on farms or in mines from dusk to dawn. For both men and women, slavery is an unspeakably cruel reality.

The Changing Face Of Slavery

Without diminishing the misery of slaves in Wilberforce's time, there are some ways in which modern slaves are in even greater danger. According to Free the Slaves, in "old slavery" slaves were extremely expensive to buy, and they were therefore seen as an investment. To protect the investment, it was in the "owner's" interest to ensure the general health of his slaves. The situation is different today. Free the Slaves reports that:

"On average a slave in the American South in 1850 cost the equivalent of $40,000 in today's money; today a slave costs an average of $90. In 1850 it was difficult to capture slaves and then transport them to the US. Today, millions of economically and socially vulnerable people around the world are potential slaves. This "supply" makes slaves today cheaper than they have ever been. Since they are so cheap, slaves are no longer a major investment worth maintaining. If slaves get sick, are injured, outlive their usefulness, or become troublesome to the slaveholder, they are dumped or killed."

An Unending Ethical Challenge

This disposable-man ethic is at the heart of many of our problems today. Slavery, like so many other modern ethical challenges, denies the inherent worth, value, and dignity of every man, woman and child. After denying their essential worth, defenders of slavery then suggest that it is okay to use people and own people— it is okay for the minority to suffer and die as long as the majority benefits. Of course, this involves widespread exploitation of the weak by the strong. In slavery, men abuse women, the rich exploit the poor, the educated deceive the uneducated, and adults injure children. When the slave's utility is exhausted, he or she is discarded or killed.

How is it that over two-hundred years since Wilberforce began his campaign against slavery, and almost 150 years since America's Civil War, we still live in a world where slavery is common and, in some places, accepted? Even in America, slavery thrives in the shadows of our society. Aside from the practice itself, the mentality that gives rise to slavery—the disposable-man ethic—is common in our nation. After all these years, one would hope that we would have come further in respecting universal human dignity, but we have not. Apparently there is something in our fallen nature that will always want to treat others like objects to be owned rather than people to be loved. Therefore, each generation must take Wilberforce's promise personally, "Never, never will we desist till we...extinguish every trace of this bloody traffic...

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
William Wilberforce: Christian hero
See detailed article, Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4932

Facile slogans like ‘Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one!’ are as immoral as ‘Don’t like slavery? Don’t own slaves!’

Julie
Your making the gay marriage issue the moral equivalent of slavery is ridiculous and childish to the extreme. There is no comparison. In the one case, you have people who are allowed to to do everything else that is legally permissible in society except marry someone of their own sex. In the other, human beings become property and are permitted none of the these other freedoms. Excuse me if I don't see the similarity. Your inability to see the difference reveals a juvenile and immature view of humanity at best or an intolerant bigot at worst.

Retract your statement and apologize to all the nice people. Then, go to your room and don't come out until you can behave.

No comparison
Virtually every agenda driven group equates the desires of that group not having its way with 'slavery'. However, ANY restriction on conduct could also be called 'slavery' by that line of thought.

One might reasonably ask "If I am forced to pay taxes that amount to 1/3 of the amount I make for my labor/creativity, am I not essentially a 'slave' or 'indentured servant' for 1/3 of a year?"

The reason I bring taxes into this forum is that once 'government' at any level spends tax dollars on anything, that 'government' then limits what 'the People' can do within the framework of that 'government' owned entity. Even further, once a 'government' (meaning 'a body oe people established to make and enforce rules of conduct') is granted power over humans, those humans are bound by restrictions placed upon them by that government.

Then, if some human beings decide to conduct themselves in a fashion outside the boundaries established by 'the People' through 'government', they proclaim themselves to be slaves to those boundaries and then attach all sorts of labels to those who believe the boundaries were put up for a good reason.

'Law' establishes speed limits on roads, streets and highways. We may obey those limits because we believe the law serves a good purpose or we may obey because we don't want to get a ticket or otherwise 'pay a price for disobedience'. Then we may try to get away with ignoring the boundaries and if caught, begin screaming that the law is unjust. We may even attack the 'enforcer' who stopped us from doing as we pleased.

In virtually every case, I hear agenda driven activists clamoring for 'equal rights' but they do not want equal rights for those who differ with them. In all cases, the activists want THEIR 'rights' to trancend any perceived 'rights' of their opposers. The acticists do not want 'equality' or even 'diversity' -- they simply want 'others' to defer to them and reamin silent or silenced.

I have long been opposed to giving 'special benefits' to anyone based on 'marriage'. At the same time, I have been opposed to denying full benefits based on being single. However, when I entered into an employment 'contract' the contract was between me and my employer -- NOT 'government'.

But still, 'government' intervened. My tax load was based on my 'status' - not my income. Married with children provided far more 'government' benefits. Even the load on taxpayers for 'social security' was not the same if I stayed married or if I married several times. If I died without a spouse or children, there were no 'survivor's benefits'. And if I died before being eligible to draw myself having remained 'single, without children', 'government' would have no obligation to pay anything on my account.

On the other hand, if I had lived as long as I have, under current lay, and had several spouses for 10 years each and one when I died, there could have been 5 'spouses' eligible to draw on my account -- each drawing the same as the a spouse who had been married to me for 50 years or more.

Everywhere we look, there are 'inequities' in government and they exist because some agenda group or other demands they exist. And I have heard that 'the voters' decided who makes the laws. That, too is a crock. Voters decide on a politician NOT on laws and more often that not, the final saw on 'law' is decided by people whom the 'voters' never had a chance to accept or reject.

Clearly, life and law are not fair or 'equitable' to some and the agenda driven 'social engineers' don't give a hang as long as they get what they want for themselves.

Along with a former US Senator, I, too, lament the passing of legalized duels. I might die as a result of one, but at least, I would die for what I BELIEVED was 'right' -- even if I were wrong. I sometimes wonder just how many 'activists' would be so active if they KNEW they were putting their own life on the line when they demanded what was 'out of bounds' by the standards of the society in which they lived.

'Slavery' to some just seems to be determined by who puts the chains of restrictions on others for their own personal gratification.

slavery as metaphor
Even though I am absolutely pro-gay rights, I think it is absolutely inappropriate to compare lack of marital rights as somehow relative to the buying and selling of humans. Slavery is a perfectly good metaphor. You can be a slave to your work, offer yourself as a slave to the one you love (don't get kinky here), or you can call unfair laws a kind of slavery. Paul the apostle talked about being a slave for Christ, I believe. Those metaphors work, in separate writings.

And it is important that women, gay people, children, the elderly, those with severe disabilities, and everyone else who is more likely to have violence done against them be given protection by society. My opinion is that we will make the most progress, not so much through laws, but through real social change...but that's just my opinion.

Just don't compare any and all injustices to the ugliest indignity known in human history. The topic of this article is present day human slavery.

Martha

What is so disheartening
is that even in this country, young girls are shipped in here and used as sex slaves. These girls are brought from all over the world. These slave masters operate in the shadows and we should know what is going on right here on our own doorstep.

I'm not sure how this has anything to do with lesbians as some other poster commented. Maybe it's too early and I don't get what the individual is talking about.

Slaves of emotions..
Actually, Donaldd - you are almost correct. In today's selfish live-for-today society, people are slaves to banks as they constantly borrow money to be used for purchasing the latest and greatest of luxuries with which to feed their emotional weaknesses, vs. waiting until they've saved enough with which to purchase these toys (or at least purchase used toys which have greatly depreciated in value).

um, um, um, um, JULIE...
Why did you write a post on lesbianism?

Comparing that to slavery is a huge leap.

I agree with bsq - your argument is so ridiculous that it doesn't even merit a response.

Romans 1:24 - Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

Go to your room and come back when you are able to reason like an adult. Until then, don't bother us.

THANK YOU

Donaldd...
Do you espouse Marxism?

One way to be financially free is to live within your means. That way you won't be beholden to the bank.

Get it?

Howdy anti-socialist...
I have a cousin who is a communist (sociology major in college). We built a brand new house a few years ago(yes, we do have a mortgage, and we also have credit scores in the 700s).

She said, "Wow, what a nice house".

I wanted to say, "Well, Ms. Communist, do you think that I am of the evil bourgeoisie?"

But I kept my mouth shut.

Meanwhile, they own their house, fly on airplanes, own a computer, etc.

AND, recently their house was burglarized, and their camera, TV, camcorder, etc. were taken. AND, do you know what? They were mad!

Now, a true Communist would say, "Take what you like. All property belongs to the state, these things don't belong to me anyway. So, have at them."

I don't know what this has to do with slavery...



Good morning, pep! :-)
Regarding julie...all I can see is that she doesn't know how to think like an adult, and that her reasoning is to be dismissed. (IMHO).

RxLady
Top of the mornin to you too.

Sometimes I have no idea where these people are coming from. But, I was pretty foggy this morning so allowed for misreading. But, you are right. Now, that I'm more awake, it makes even less sense.

Julie
Marriage itself is a religious institution. Gay marriage is something that is not only religiously IMMORAL but UNNATURAL!! Nobody is hindering you from having a gay lover, you probably have one or even more than one now. We just don,t want you forcing your views on the Majority who believes that marriage is sacred and should be between a man and a woman. You can't make something as immorally unatural as gay marriage and compare it on equal terms to the abollition movement. Those who were for ending slavery back then would have never been in favor of gay marriage!!

Rubbish!
Your confused "women=victim" crapola pretends that women who take sex work jobs are equivalent to people who were owned, bought and sold. There have always been poor people who take poor jobs to survive, but like David Copperfield, the poor are not slaves. There are real slaves in some countries, especially in Africa, but your twisted feminist "women=victim" mind ignores the plight of real slaves to focus on female non-slaves who have sex jobs. Pathetic losers like you waste our time.

Bob

Catch more of The World according to Bob at: http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/

Human Bondage
Did anyone of you besides Bob read the article on slavery? It seems most of you have an agenda and are trying to tie it to world human bondage.

Nice try but it ain't working with me.

King David

Martha
I find myself, somewhat surprisingly, agreeing with you to a certain extent. Slavery is a useful metaphor as you state and finds some of its highest expression exactly as you pointed out, in the Pauline epistles. Note however, the voluntary nature of Paul's servitude. This is what makes the metaphor so powerful.

I would disagree that gay people are denied rights enjoyed by other citizens. I don't see that. And, while I agree with your point that the weakest in our society must be protected, I don't think that special laws are required to do that. We already have laws that make it illegal to beat someone up. If adequately enforced, they are sufficient. If not adequately enforced, what reason is there to believe that new ones would fare better in that respect?

But it is tiresome, selfish, and immature when the metaphor is misappropriated by special interest groups whose plight is in no way comparable with actual slavery. It is childish and distasteful in the extreme and indicative of an undeveloped intellect.

Bob and KingD - Rubbish?
Do you think under age girls should be allowed to be in this kind of situation? Do you guys "hire" under age girls for your recreation? Is that why you make such comments as "rubbish"?



Excerpt from article by Peter Landesman of NYT:


The house at 1212 1/2 West Front Street in Plainfield, N.J., is a conventional midcentury home with slate-gray siding, white trim and Victorian lines. When I stood in front of it on a breezy day in October, I could hear the cries of children from the playground of an elementary school around the corner. American flags fluttered from porches and windows. The neighborhood is a leafy, middle-class Anytown. The house is set back off the street, near two convenience stores and a gift shop. On the door of Superior Supermarket was pasted a sign issued by the Plainfield police: ''Safe neighborhoods save lives.'' The store's manager, who refused to tell me his name, said he never noticed anything unusual about the house, and never heard anything. But David Miranda, the young man behind the counter of Westside Convenience, told me he saw girls from the house roughly once a week. ''They came in to buy candy and soda, then went back to the house,'' he said. The same girls rarely came twice, and they were all very young, Miranda said. They never asked for anything beyond what they were purchasing; they certainly never asked for help. Cars drove up to the house all day; nice cars, all kinds of cars. Dozens of men came and went. ''But no one here knew what was really going on,'' Miranda said. And no one ever asked.

On a tip, the Plainfield police raided the house in February 2002, expecting to find illegal aliens working an underground brothel. What the police found were four girls between the ages of 14 and 17. They were all Mexican nationals without documentation. But they weren't prostitutes; they were sex slaves. The distinction is important: these girls weren't working for profit or a paycheck. They were captives to the traffickers and keepers who controlled their every move. ''I consider myself hardened,'' Mark J. Kelly, now a special agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security), told me recently. ''I spent time in the Marine Corps. But seeing some of the stuff I saw, then heard about, from those girls was a difficult, eye-opening experience.''

The police found a squalid, land-based equivalent of a 19th-century slave ship, with rancid, doorless bathrooms; bare, putrid mattresses; and a stash of penicillin, ''morning after'' pills and misoprostol, an antiulcer medication that can induce abortion. The girls were pale, exhausted and malnourished.

It turned out that 1212 1/2 West Front Street was one of what law-enforcement officials say are dozens of active stash houses and apartments in the New York metropolitan area -- mirroring hundreds more in other major cities like Los Angeles, Atlanta and Chicago -- where under-age girls and young women from dozens of countries are trafficked and held captive. Most of them -- whether they started out in Eastern Europe or Latin America -- are taken to the United States through Mexico. Some of them have been baited by promises of legitimate jobs and a better life in America; many have been abducted; others have been bought from or abandoned by their impoverished families.

Because of the porousness of the U.S.-Mexico border and the criminal networks that traverse it, the towns and cities along that border have become the main staging area in an illicit and barbaric industry, whose ''products'' are women and girls. On both sides of the border, they are rented out for sex for as little as 15 minutes at a time, dozens of times a day. Sometimes they are sold outright to other traffickers and sex rings, victims and experts say. These sex slaves earn no money, there is nothing voluntary about what they do and if they try to escape they are often beaten and sometimes killed.

Last September, in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush named sex trafficking as ''a special evil,'' a multibillion-dollar ''underground of brutality and lonely fear,'' a global scourge alongside the AIDS epidemic. Influenced by a coalition of religious organizations, the Bush administration has pushed international action on the global sex trade. The president declared at the U.N. that ''those who create these victims and profit from their suffering must be severely punished'' and that ''those who patronize this industry debase themselves and deepen the misery of others. And governments that tolerate this trade are tolerating a form of slavery.''









Evangelicals
I agree with the gist of ken's article but I find the sentence which contains "the brave and passionate Christians of generations past who worked tirelessly to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and free the enslaved." to be not quite accurate.

I was a young man in Miami, Fl. in the 60's and I can tell you that evangelicals in my city were anything but what that sentence described.

I was attending a Methodist church and even it, voted that no black person could enter the sanctuary except for a black college choir, once a year. Evangelicals of that era opened their bibles to show me why they felt as they did.

More excerpts from Landesman article:
BREAKING THE GIRLS IN

Once the Mexican traffickers abduct or seduce the women and young girls, it's not other men who first indoctrinate them into sexual slavery but other women. The victims and officials I spoke to all emphasized this fact as crucial to the trafficking rings' success. ''Women are the principals,'' Caballero, the Mexican federal preventive police officer, told me. ''The victims are put under the influence of the mothers, who handle them and beat them. Then they give the girls to the men to beat and rape into submission.'' Traffickers understand that because women can more easily gain the trust of young girls, they can more easily crush them. ''Men are the customers and controllers, but within most trafficking organizations themselves, women are the operators,'' Haugen says. ''Women are the ones who exert violent force and psychological torture.''


This mirrors the tactics of the Eastern European rings. ''Mexican pimps have learned a lot from European traffickers,'' said Claudia, a former prostitute and madam in her late 40's, whom I met in Tepito, Mexico City's vast and lethal ghetto. ''The Europeans not only gather girls but put older women in the same houses,'' she told me. ''They get younger and older women emotionally attached. They're transported together, survive together.''

The traffickers' harvest is innocence. Before young women and girls are taken to the United States, their captors want to obliterate their sexual inexperience while preserving its appearance. For the Eastern European girls, this ''preparation'' generally happens in Ensenada, a seaside tourist town in Baja California, a region in Mexico settled by Russian immigrants, or Tijuana, where Nicole, the Russian woman I met in Los Angeles, was taken along with four other girls when she arrived in Mexico. The young women are typically kept in locked-down, gated villas in groups of 16 to 20. The girls are provided with all-American clothing -- Levi's and baseball caps. They learn to say, ''U.S. citizen.'' They are also sexually brutalized. Nicole told me that the day she arrived in Tijuana, three of her traveling companions were ''tried out'' locally. The education lasts for days and sometimes weeks.


For the Mexican girls abducted by Los Lenones, the process of breaking them in often begins on Calle Santo Tomas, a filthy narrow street in La Merced, a dangerous and raucous ghetto in Mexico City. Santo Tomas has been a place for low-end prostitution since before Spain's conquest of Mexico in the 16th century. But beginning in the early 90's, it became an important training ground for under-age girls and young women on their way into sexual bondage in the United States. When I first visited Santo Tomas, in late September, I found 150 young women walking a slow-motion parabola among 300 or 400 men. It was a balmy night, and the air was heavy with the smell of barbecue and gasoline. Two dead dogs were splayed over the curb just beyond where the girls struck casual poses in stilettos and spray-on-tight neon vinyl and satin or skimpy leopard-patterned outfits. Some of the girls looked as young as 12. Their faces betrayed no emotion. Many wore pendants of the grim reaper around their necks and made hissing sounds; this, I was told, was part of a ritual to ward off bad energy. The men, who were there to rent or just gaze, didn't speak. From the tables of a shabby cafe midblock, other men -- also Mexicans, but more neatly dressed -- sat scrutinizing the girls as at an auction. These were buyers and renters with an interest in the youngest and best looking. They nodded to the girls they wanted and then followed them past a guard in a Yankees baseball cap through a tin doorway.

Inside, the girls braced the men before a statue of St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes, and patted them down for weapons. Then the girls genuflected to the stone-faced saint and led the men to the back, grabbing a condom and roll of toilet paper on the way. They pointed to a block of ice in a tub in lieu of a urinal. Beyond a blue hallway the air went sour, like old onions; there were 30 stalls curtained off by blue fabric, every one in use. Fifteen minutes of straightforward intercourse with the girl's clothes left on cost 50 pesos, or about $4.50. For $4.50 more, the dress was lifted. For another $4.50, the bra would be taken off. Oral sex was $4.50; ''acrobatic positions'' were $1.80 each. Despite the dozens of people and the various exertions in this room, there were only the sounds of zippers and shoes. There was no human noise at all.

Most of the girls on Santo Tomas would have sex with 20 to 30 men a day; they would do this seven days a week usually for weeks but sometimes for months before they were ''ready'' for the United States. If they refused, they would be beaten and sometimes killed. They would be told that if they tried to escape, one of their family members, who usually had no idea where they were, would be beaten or killed. Working at the brutalizing pace of 20 men per day, a girl could earn her captors as much as $2,000 a week. In the U.S., that same girl could bring in perhaps $30,000 per week.





Ken Connor
makes a good point when he writes, "it was in the "owner's" interest to ensure the general health of his slaves."


We look at slavery through the prism of presentism (evaluating past societies using modern values and attitudes).

Slavery existed for thousands of years because everything done was labor-intensive. Most farmers in America were land-rich, dirt-poor. They had land to cultivate, but not the labor needed to do the work. A few land-holders did have the capital to invest in African slaves, prisoners from England and indentured servants (all slave labor).

With the advent of "human rights" and "natural law", the culture evolved to the point where many Americans thought ownership of other humans was wrong. That [and the industrial revolution] changed the way we looked at slavery.

In the 1950's, there were things called secretarial pools where a large group of women pounded away on typewriters all day. When copiers and word processors were invented, those pools vanished.

Maybe in 200 years, people will look back at us and wonder how we could be so ignorant about everything. Using presentism as an argument is fallacious.

MODERN SLAVERY
Ken Conner hits the nail right on the head.

Slaves can even be found in countries considered our allies in the war on terror. Their working conditions are deplorable. They are abused for their faith by physical beatings and rapes.

Wilberforce's comment cited at the beginning of this article is uncomfortably current.


to David Mac
Natural laws and human rights are not presentist they are
what should be called "eternalist". They have always existed.

All men and women ever born were created equal with
inalienable rights, among these are life, health, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights groups of
people create governments.

Involuntary servitude has always been wrong through all
time no matter how it was justified.

Always remember who the first abolitionist was. The first slave.

I do find the slavery analogy apt for the following:
modern day slavery - lack of equality, lacking rights of health,
liberties, and pursuit of happiness
abortion - lack right of life, and thus all others
immigration - lacking the pursuit of happiness and perhaps liberties.


the movie and recommendations
For what it's worth I enjoyed the film and found it historically
accurate. (Okay they might have taken some liberty on what
the historical actors said in private, but it seemed within the
realm of probability. I might have to read Eric Metaxas's
_Amazing Grace which I guess is the main source for the film?)
Not a movie that needs to be seen on the big screen - no sweeping landscapes, etc.

For reviews of the film I recommend Metacritic
(Actually I recommend Metacritic for all types of reviews):
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/amazinggrace?q=amazing%20grace

and I recommend Adam Hochschild's _ Bury The Chains:
Prophets And Rebels In The Fight To Free An Empire's Slaves_
which I believe the film uses to a large extent:
http://www.metacritic.com/books/authors/hochschildadam/burythechains?q=bury%20the%20chains

No reviews yet on Metacritic for Metaxas's book. Probably will
be up in the next couple weeks since it is a new release.

Some interesting facts about slavery....
I find it incredible how the blacks in the USA, of African descent, have been so duped by the likes of Louis Farrakhan and "The Nation of Islam" and related organizations convincing this ethnic group that Islam (Muslims) was and/or is their religion of origin. Slavery is "alive and well" in Muslim countries like Chad and Yemen. They are CURRENTLY active in everything from the capture and entrapment of children, to women, to men for sexual exploitation, to forced labour. Just take a look at a book: Sold: Story of Modern-day Slavery by Zana Muhsen. The very victims of former Western slave trade are swallowing this garbage of finding their identity and origins via one of most corrupt and violent malignancies ever to take hold in this country. Islam is the only current mainstream religion that still embraces and practices slavery. Let’s not even get into the oppression of women. Pure Islam, if there is such a thing, is not only counter to these people's mandate, but the American version, The Nation of Islam is about as Islamic as Scientology is a religion. Why do you think Malcolm X was assassinated?

Bottom line is that for a ethnic group looking for reprisals and recognition of something that was certainly a blight on the past of this nation of ours, it is a bit of a paradox that they would be embracing a so called religion of "origin" trying to establish some sort of identity. When, in actual fact, they are embracing and looking to for an identity in some of the most ardent slavers of history and to date. These original slavers were and still are African, are blacks, and most were/are Muslim. It were/are these same Muslims that were the prime suppliers for the slave traders of the past and even the present they are condemning and holding us responsible for. But, we had a war in part over the abolition of slavery and STOPPED. Just look at the epiphany of John Newton. Look at Amazing Grace and what it says by a former slaver. But, the religion they are embracing in exponential numbers, i.e. Islam/Muslims, this "ilk of origin", did not only fail to stop after the abolishment of slavery here, they continued. They still, to this day, deal in the sale and exploitation of human cargo. We got the Message from Him, the G-d of Judaism and Christianity. Evidently, the god of Islam "ain't got the message yet"!

Okinell
I am in complete agreement with you. How can these so called "free thinking" people tout Islam as a peaceful Religion? It is anything but the children have their minds "enslaved" from the time they are born and the women have their minds and bodies "enslaved".
It is a Patriatic society which is for men only.
The slavery going on in Africa, even now, is a sin against all of mankind.
The UN should be dismantled and all of the money we give to these leaches could save these poor souls.

Julie's analogy WET squib
Basically, the same as using homosexuality (a LEARNED behaviour, which can be unlearned) the equivalent of skin colour (which is genetic, and cannot readily be changed).

Newsflash: homosexuals HAD/HAVE a closet to keep their "secret" in, whereas African-Americans had no such hiding place.

Her post shows also that she is probably enslaved by this behaviour (as unnatural behaviours, considered abominable by God, DO enslave the doer).

Why does
commentary about slavery almost always focus on the 19th century variety? How bout a documentary on slavery in ancient China? A movie about slaves in Classical Greece? Slavery in the Roman Imperial period (other than the farce of "Spartacus")?

"Slavery, like so many other modern ethical challenges, denies the inherent worth, value, and dignity of every man, woman and child. After denying their essential worth, defenders of slavery then suggest that it is okay to use people and own people— it is okay for the minority to suffer and die as long as the majority benefits."

First, demonstrate to me any INHERENT worth, value or dignity of every man, woman and child, simply because they are human and exist. I look around at my fellow Americans, and the word "dignity" does not spring to mind. The idea of "inherent worth" just because they're human is a socialist concept. What object, commodity, or creature is measured in terms of some indefinable 'worth' outside the laws of supply and demand?

I don't want to see Americans enslaved because Americans (while having no more "inherent" worth than anyone else) have worth TO ME.

Consider the mindset of someone whose loyalty to his society is such that he values money over his fellows... oh, silly me, the word for such a person is "Wal-mart shopper" or "Mitsubishi driver", or "American". The same mindset, such as Bush's, that measures morality in dollar signs ("they do the jobs Americans aren't doing...") is the one that embraces the trafficking in humans.

There there are those "inherently worthy, valuable and dignified" people who sell themselves every day for everything from groceries to big-screen TVs. How difficult is it to sell strangers when you will turn your child over to strangers to raise in day-care so you can pursue your career at Wal-mart and have that 2nd car you mostly need to get to work.

Sorry, you can pontificate and make indignant noises against slavery all you want, if that makes you feel superior, but human traffickers who take cash for other people are merely farther down the road from the indignant abolitionists.

There's nothing unique about slave traders.

mr donaldd
Satan quoted scripture while tempting Jesus to sin...Jesus saw right through it...

I am no fascist...

God's word is not Marxism, sir. God gives every person the freedom to think and do as he pleases.

God's word is for 2 things - our provision and our protection.

For example - "You shall not steal" - we are being protected by not having our possessions, etc. taken from us, and are being provided for in having our possessions be safe.

God's word is also "precepts" and "principles". An example of a precept is "You shall not steal". A principle would be "Don't be late for work becuase you taking time away from your employer."

God desires to provide for us and protect us from the consequences of our actions. We can observe God's word and be protected and provided for, or we can not observe God's word and, thus have to deal with the results. (Like getting fired for being late).

We don't have to ANYTHING in God's word, it's our choice.

And, BTW, you are engaging in "ad hominem" by calling me fascist.

on jdw's pontification
The inherent worth of every human being is not a socialist, but
a social, communal, individual, Enlightened, Christian (Golden Rule),
and truly democratic belief.

It is self evident. It will proven to you when someone thinks
they have the "right" (sic) to own you and do what they will
with you. Something inside you will scream out: This is
wrong!

Your comments relating to people pursuing happiness through
work and purchasin and raising their childrens as they see best
are not analogous and break not strain the analogy of slavery.
(If you're talking about parents who sell their kids into slavery
then we are agreed) If you want to view those practices as voluntary servitude you may, but that is much different than involuntary servitude.

We are all free to make slaves of ourselves but not others.

Hey ace....
How ya doin'?

It's very sad to hear about professing Christians that twist the scripture to make it fit their own preferences.

We have 2 kinds of people - those who follow Christ, and those who admire Christ. The difference is vast.

Rest assured that the people you were referring to were not following God's word in their treatment of their fellow human beings. Woe to anyone who misuses God's word so it suits them!

The Sermon on the Mount in the book of Matthew is the gist of how we are to live. Easier said than done - that's why we need a Savior - to save us from our wretched selves.

The bottom line is that we really have to look at Jesus - He's the only One who has never messed anything up. People are going to fail us - every time.

Slavery
There are many types of slavery. The obvious ones being physical or mental slavery There also are the not-so-obvious kinds like taxation.
When taxation becomes so pervasive that governmental bodies can take away homes and property and use tax monies to advance ideology that is abhorant to the taxpayer, that is governmental slavery.

past insults and modern realities
It is a sad and pathetic reality that the issue of slavery (past only) is used by the left to beat all Americans over the head with crimes committed by a small number of Americans almost 200 years ago. The self serving dreck (as can be seen in some of these posts) about women, lesbianism, "abused" present day American blacks, blah, blah, endless blah, is just a sample of the stupidity and ignorance shown by those who claim to be "compassionate".

Yet where are these "champions" when it comes to actually DOING something about the atrocious crimes being committed against the less fortunate NOW? The "Christofascists" seem to be the only ones actually rolling up their sleeves and trying to better the lives of those who will NEVER know the abundance our, so-called, "poor" enjoy.

The slavery issue is NOT for the hyperbolic use of the western leftist elites. It IS something we should never forget that some of our own countrymen were capable of THEN, and is still quite prolific in other nations NOW. The American people should be informed and leading the charge to end this despicable practice, which would require the media abandoning their "hate Bush" campaign and actually ACCOMPLISHING something positive. Our "leaders" (I chuckle as I type that...)should be speaking out against it, in spite of the fact that it might take time away from their campaigns. Finally, those whose ancestors WERE slaves should be the first to try and do something, instead of demanding ever more set-asides and reparations for themselves NOW. Just because some great-granny was a slave doesn't mean YOU know a damn thing about what it was like.

Being the only superpower comes with responsibilities, which most of us know. America is the greatest force for good ever known- yet we drop the ball on this one...

dropping the ball...
I would say it's our Hollywood elitists who and the elitist media who have elected to drop the ball. They weep crocodile tears for the Iraqis killed in our attempt to wrest slavery from the hands of Baathists, but we heard nothing from them while Saddam slaughtered dozen of times more lives on a daily basis.

Those elitists will continue to shift our attention away from those imported for sexual exploitation in our midst. They would rather promote Bush hatred than save a single human being.

Don't know if you'll check this, bsq,
...but thanks for seeing the similarities in our thinking. It is a bit surprising after what was said last weekend. ;) In any case, you're right: we don't agree about rights for gay people. The trick is, I'm one of those "liberals" who doesn't think that means you're hate-filled. I prefer my discussions and debates civil, which means that I must assume that it's at least possible that others have come to their conclusions with as much or more effort and ethical intent as I.

By the way, I also agree to some extent about the effectiveness and necessity of laws. Unlike you, I want change, I just don't think real change will happen through just a bunch of laws or judicial decrees. It will be a long, social change that sees the proverbial cowboys stop beating up gay guys for looking at them funny. Forget the hate crime legislation. Let's see some _social_ pressure to be man enough not to pick on people. That's the part I care about most for my gay friends.

The power of the servanthood metaphor is indeed due to its voluntary nature. What you say is exactly what I meant: metaphors are for another time and place. This is _real_ slavery. It is at best disingenuous to mingle inequities and atrocities.

Julie, I want the best for you, but I don't see this as a way to get it. You turned a noncontroversial topic into an off-topic forum on a conservative site...why? And I honestly think that comparing the two insults the people who are being held against their will. Furthermore, there are both men and women who objectivize others, so how is it fair to blame men as a group for sexual slavery?

I'd rather see people work together to do whatever we can to end slavery. It will take some time and a great deal of economic development, but at least we can all agree that it is immoral.

Thanks for the review, everyonesfacts. I can't wait to see the film!

Martha

Julie
You are able to have relations with anyone you want. You are able to make commitment pacts with anyone. The only difference is governmental benefits given to heterosexual couples.

The government favors many groups of people at the expense of others for the benefit of the country. Examples include subsidies to companies to produce alternate forms of energy to replace oil, deductions for homeowners and below market rates for college loans.

On the other hand, tax policies in the past have penalized married couples. I'm not sure if that continues today.

I admit that there are benefits that favor the heterosexual family structure outside of societal benefit, like Social Security rights to survivors, hospital visitation and permission to authorize medical treatment.

None of these "inequities" violate equal protection for _individuals_ in the Constitution.

If you want government to provide the same legal protections as married couples, lobby Congress, lobby your state government just like other groups. Also, you are free to explore legal contracts between you and your partner.

If you want to change this, persuade the public. Convince legislatures to put measures to the vote. Already, companies like Disney are providing health care coverage to same-sex partners.

The argument from homosexual activists has been that they should be allowed to redefine marriage, but that this will not lead to redefinition for other more extreme groups. Are you so special that you are allowed to define marriage but no one else? If so, aren't heterosexuals allowed the same ability? If not, you must allow others the same privilege.

Don't force your beliefs on me. Don't you complain about others forcing their beliefs on you? Isn't that a double-standard?

Julie
*** "Let's fix our country first
This seems to be an obvious point- our education, prison, and political systems in this country need a tremendous amount tinkering before we should be worrying about any other country in the world.

Our hypocritic president claims he loves freedom so much that it is worth the loss of over 3000 Americans lives to help establish it in the Middle East. How about first addressing the problems of this country, like the government sanctions on the qualifications needed for two adults to have their relationship protected under the law." ***

What is your fixation with President Bush? He can only issue Executive Orders. Congress is the one to pass legislation. Go talk to them.

Martha
Thanks for your kind words. However you said that unlike me, you wanted change. But that is not unlike me at all. I too want change. We agree that the weakest in our society must be protected from violence but 1.6 million of the weakest and most innocent suffer a violent and painful death in the US alone each year, sacrificed on the alter of "choice". No matter what Evangelicals of the conservative stripe think, changing the law, aside from being highly improbable, is highly unlikely to have the desired effect. Changing this horrendous practice will take place one heart at a time.

This same thing is true of slavery which, despite Bob and King David's protestations to the contrary, is not the same as women "taking sex work jobs". By the way Martha, if you've not been to Bob's blog and plan on going, here's a travel tip; bring galoshes, it's a fever swamp in there, quite sloppy.

We change this one heart at a time and ironically, it is by volunteering for slavery ourselves, as Paul did, that we free others. No other way to do it I'm afraid, Jails the world around are full of testaments to the fact that laws will not change men's hearts.

And Julie, you said:

"And FYI- the bible makes no mention of lesbian sex,"

Unfortunately, not true. Romans 1:26 is quite specific. I'm afraid that, like the rest of us, you are a sinner. Join the club. I know of no cure on this earth for the condition but I do know how to negate it's effects if you're interested.

Pathetic Julie
That you could compare your life to a slave is beyond pale. I have seen slaves rescued that were used by generations of drug producers chaining them to a bench where they pounded cocoa leaves for decades. You should have such problems.

Buz...
"When taxation becomes so pervasive that governmental bodies can take away homes and property and use tax monies to advance ideology that is abhorant to the taxpayer, that is governmental slavery."

Especially when elitists implementing taxation aren't subject to the same taxation and property confiscation. The Kennedy clan hasn't been subject to the same taxation on the wealth they inherited from "boot-leg Joe" and unlike civilians, they fought to disallow wind farms where they would interfer with scenery they now enjoy.

everyonesfact
posted, "Natural laws and human rights are not presentist they are
what should be called "eternalist". They have always existed."


No, human rights have not "always existed". Laws and rights only exist insofar as human beings accept them as real and valid. To assume that "natural laws and human rights have always existed" is a good example of presentism.

For example, it was normal military tactics to lay seige to a town and negotiate a surrender. If the town refused to negotiate and the military commander had to take the town by force, the soldiers were permitted to pillage the town. Any "natural law" there? No.

When monarchy existed in ancient Egypt, do you suppose the people had a voice in government? If the king wanted someone eliminated, do you think he'd do it legally, obeying natural laws and human rights? No. The king was a god and it was only through his arbitrary and capricious benevolence that anyone would get "justice".

Presentism has been around a long time and is the cause of many arguments, especially about "rights". It's real easy to condemn our ancestors for the brutal and "unfair" things they did; it's much more difficult to understand their perspective on any given situation.

DavidMac
If you'll read my first post you'll see that I argue that
these rights always exist. Which they do.

I also argue that we, as individuals, depend on governments,
people or society might be a better word, to secure these rights.

So, your argument does not disprove that these rights
always exist yet it does prove they are not always secure.
This is not the same thing. Your posts prove we need
governments or societies to secure rights. Let us work
to do so.

correction
last post should read my reply to you not "my first post"

And I'll add that context, or perspective, is always important.
It might be the most important thing historians show us about
the story of the past when they do it well.

everyonesfacts
I am not comparing parents who put their kids in daycare with slavery... I'm saying the same selfish, self-centered mindset, with regard to their own children, IS THE SAME MINDSET THAT SOONER OR LATER EXCUSES SLAVERY.

No, human beings do NOT have any inherent worth. Explain the exact dollar amount of "inherent" human worth? What is it, a few dollars worth of chemicals when rendered down?

While the philosophy behind the Constitution is that men are given rights by God and gov't must protect those rights....

RIGHTS DO NOT EXIST. You have the right to rape your neighbor's cat, if you can do so without reprisal. You have the right to life? Scream that at the ocean as it drowns you.

Outside the force and structure of a society, Man has no value, and has no rights. Slavery is wrong because we don't like it, not because there is some "right" not to be slaves. And a wage-slave is still a slave; the impoverished immigrants of the 19th century, whose children had to work dawn til dark (and sometimes after) in inhuman conditions because the alternative was starvation in the streets were no more free than a black slave on a Southern plantation. But their master had the advantage of not having to pay for them in the first place, or feeding and housing them.
And the duplicitous MINDSET that allowed that atrocity while condemning slavery is still alive in the U.S. and even in the White House, because "... they do jobs Americans won't do."

Anti-Mohammed
"he demoncats first slaughtered the Indians(Jackson, the 1st demoncat), fought for slavery, interned the Japanese and Jim Crowed African Americans. It is a case of the Stockholm syndrome."

Gee, you're starting to make me consider switching to the Democrat party...

jdw
I will agree to disagree with you about daycare leading to the
road of slavery. But I will agree that slavery is a result of
overemphasizing one's personal self-interest and a disregard
of other's interests.

Just to clarify we are talking abut the Declaration of Independence,
perhaps the Constitution when you include the 14th Am.

You are confusing rights you are born with and / or given by God
and the securing of those rights. Rights are inherent they have
to be externally secured. I agree with you up to a point when you said:
"Outside the force and structure of a society, Man has no . . . rights.
But, I would say outside of society man has no guarantee of secured
rights.

Also, natural rights are not something to be figured out by supply
and demand. They are priceless.

Lastly, natural rights are to be protected by the human community
as much as possible. The ocean and the lion have no responsibility
in securing your rights and are imo a red herring.

As for raping your neighbor's cat or stealing his wheelbarrow. That
is an alienable right - property and also one that has to be secured
by society or government. It is a great link to the enslaved, because
once they were deemed as property one could do what one wished
with them (in theory).

what contracts are
Not much on slavery, but marriage is a contact between two parties and the state. In NJ, prob. in other Am. states, the parties become incorporated into one body, which is--maybe unfortunately--still "him." The reason getting divorced is always difficult, no fault or whatever, is that contract is being abrogated. Contracts are not constructed to be broken without pain and suffering, irrespective of the emotions in a marital union. As to gay "marriage," no society-not the major ancient pagan societies like Egypt or Greece or Rome or any other--institutionalized homosexual marriage, and they had no moral proscription against homosexuals. They, did, however see that homosexual marriage did not benefit them as bulwarks of their nations. Today, no modern non-Christian-Jewish-Moslem (people of the Book) cultures like Hinduism or Taoism or Shintoism or Confucionism--have created "gay" marriage, regardless of their moral or philosophical stands on homosexuality, which are not esp. anti-homosexual in any moral way. The reason is that back into prehistoric times for humans the recognition of male-female marriage as a foundation of society has been based on the need for long-term childraising and the financial and political stability of cultures. Love, until the West's invention of Romanticism as a movement in literature and the arts, was rarely, if ever, a basis for marriage. Parents and people in positions of power arranged marriages for purposes of binding families together, maintaining political and economic power, and solidifying stability in the polity. People did not talk about "soul mates," although the concept is Platonic and respectably ancient. However,in Plato's view you get ONE soulmate. His idea was before birth the soul split and one half went into a male infant and anoher half into a female infant. When the two were joined, they were soulmates. For those people who practice serial relationships or serial marriages, they used up their soul mate in ther first match. Unless your soul is fragmented infintesimally, you only get to "soul meet" one other. "Love," an ephemeral emotion, has not proven a good basis for any kind of marriage, ergo the current divorce rates and the attendant child neglect, prococious child sexual experimentation, laggard academic achievement by children of divorce, and statistically linked crime and drug use. Homosexual marriage does not "free" anyone from slavery and is specious on its face. As to modern slavery, in much of Africa, it miserably has been the disenfranchisement of Christians for the greed and abuse of Moslems. Southeast Asia and the newly freed Eastern European countries seem particularly invovled in child-sex slavery, and a major market is the US, for which we should we should be abjectly ashamed. One would hope a global leader like the UN would step forward to enlighten the world of modern slavery and work tirelessly to end this abomination. However, wherever UN field troops have been, Africa particularly, these international soldiers have evidently practiced the worst of child sexual enslavement for their own cupidity and greed.

Julie
Get a grip on reality girl...you think that the word of God doesn't mention lesbianism it's not condemned as well? Let me disabuse you of that notion...Read Romans 1 and 2 in Romans 1 it even states that women exchanged natual relations for unnatural ones (now in your opinion what Paul mean when he states unnatural relation?) What you need to understand is that it is unnatural for your relationship. BTW what is really sick is your opinion that you are under slavery because Me and my kind believe that you shouldn't be allowed to get married -- which I don't understand because point blank -- according to you you already have a much more fulfilling relationship with your soulmate than I ever could with my spouse (I would beg to differ on that one) -- why would you want to mess that up with marraige?

The best advice I can give you is to find out who Jesus is, get a relationship with him and find out what a true "soulmate" is.

just ignore it
test

What moral confusion!
Julie:

"Don't like abortions? Don't impregnate women you don't intend to marry!

Don't like slavery? Fight for equal civil rights regardless of your personal religious convictions!"

#1 - I suppose the woman has no control over this process. Also, it's obligatory under the liberal doctrine to consider unborn (perhaps even born?) to be so much human debris, discharge, waste. The male has no rights in this process, of course. Only potential state enforced obligations.

#2 - At what point does the human acquire 'civil rights'? Conception? (of course not), three months, six months, nine months, birth, 3 months, 1 year... (Oh, perhaps only at the behest of the mother whim) And what form do these 'civil rights' take - right to have society provide for it's every wish and comfort, to be state indoctrinated, to participate in sex,... Another one of those 'social good' and 'community values' concepts that only you may define. Oh, and by the way, the religious based value system one may possess is totally irrelevant to these considerations - in fact, exclusionary.

How sad! What a very unstructured, whimsical and emotion based value system you possess. Moral relativism at its extreme...Paganism.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.